Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 07:27:27 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 06:02:02 PM

Quote from: S'mon on October 10, 2021, 02:33:20 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:42:20 AM

Quote from: S'mon on October 10, 2021, 05:29:52 AM
IP Law is Monopoly Capitalism. It's not Socialism just because it's rent-seeking, calling it Socialism just muddies the issue. Not everything bad is Socialism.

Monopoly capitalism is a contradiction in terms. A government-granted privilege that excludes competitors is an explicit rejection of the free market.

Capitalism and the Free Market are not the same things. That sounds like the kind of mistake Ayn Rand might make. 

Capitalism is about accumulating ...capital. Which you then invest at a profit. You can rig things so you face no competition, and still be a capitalist. In fact this is a great way to maximise ROI, which is why it's so popular.

I've never read any Ayn Rand, so I can't speak to her beliefs. But it's worth remembering that "capitalism" was a term coined by Engles and Marx, so it was intended to be an insult, and using their definition is adopting a biased stereotype. Capitalism, when used correctly and positively, is synonymous with free market. It's the system that originated from the Puritan work ethic, emerged from individual rights and became one of the foundational legs of (classical) liberalism, and was developed by thinkers like Cantillon, Bastiat, Say, Smith, and Ricardo.

What you're describing is cronyism.

Nothing says free markets and individual rights than the following line of thinking: "We as a society grant you a temporal monopoly on stuff you did with your own money. For the greater good"

Still stuck on the idea that you're entitled to force other individuals to give you money? Nice socialist line of thought.

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 07:32:11 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 07:27:27 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 06:02:02 PM

Quote from: S'mon on October 10, 2021, 02:33:20 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:42:20 AM

Quote from: S'mon on October 10, 2021, 05:29:52 AM
IP Law is Monopoly Capitalism. It's not Socialism just because it's rent-seeking, calling it Socialism just muddies the issue. Not everything bad is Socialism.

Monopoly capitalism is a contradiction in terms. A government-granted privilege that excludes competitors is an explicit rejection of the free market.

Capitalism and the Free Market are not the same things. That sounds like the kind of mistake Ayn Rand might make. 

Capitalism is about accumulating ...capital. Which you then invest at a profit. You can rig things so you face no competition, and still be a capitalist. In fact this is a great way to maximise ROI, which is why it's so popular.

I've never read any Ayn Rand, so I can't speak to her beliefs. But it's worth remembering that "capitalism" was a term coined by Engles and Marx, so it was intended to be an insult, and using their definition is adopting a biased stereotype. Capitalism, when used correctly and positively, is synonymous with free market. It's the system that originated from the Puritan work ethic, emerged from individual rights and became one of the foundational legs of (classical) liberalism, and was developed by thinkers like Cantillon, Bastiat, Say, Smith, and Ricardo.

What you're describing is cronyism.

Nothing says free markets and individual rights than the following line of thinking: "We as a society grant you a temporal monopoly on stuff you did with your own money. For the greater good"

Still stuck on the idea that you're entitled to force other individuals to give you money? Nice socialist line of thought.

Still stuck on the idea that you have a right to other people's products for free? Because of the greater good?

How is it selling a product forcing anyone to give me money?

Or you mean that you can either buy it or not? Yes, so much forcing...

To you "forcing" people to give me money is the same as not being for theft.

Free exchange of goods/services for money = Forcing people to give me money says the socialist.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 08:09:52 PM
Still stuck on the idea that you have a right to other people's products for free? Because of the greater good?

How is it selling a product forcing anyone to give me money?

Or you mean that you can either buy it or not? Yes, so much forcing...

To you "forcing" people to give me money is the same as not being for theft.

Free exchange of goods/services for money = Forcing people to give me money says the socialist.

Back at you. That's exactly how I feel about your position. You're advocating theft. Real theft. And forcing people to work for you against their will.

And you don't get that.

I understand where you're coming from. You can tell, because I reacted to your arguments, discussed their origins and what they imply, and then went through and explained why I think you're wrong. I do think you're wrong, but I understand your position.

You clearly don't understand where any of the people who disagree with you are coming from, because you haven't addressed any of the points we've made. You've ignored what we said, and reverted back to the same rote talking points.

So there's really no point in talking to you. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Pat I have my issues with IP law as well, but your making it sound like that you believe corporate espionage and actual theft is ethical  as long as the thief makes more money then the original holder.

Is that your actual position? This may just be a communication thing.

Edit: Pat your arguments may have been so terrible that you made me pro-copyright when I wasn't before.

Edit Edit: The premise around piracy being moral centers around that ideas cannot be property....But literally everything in human civilization is an idea or a concept. Unless the argument is that the only property your are allowed to have and protect is for the most basest of physical objects. And you MUST share everything else.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 09:12:43 PM
Pat I have my issues with IP law as well, but your making it sound like that you believe corporate espionage and actual theft is ethical  as long as the thief makes more money then the original holder.

Is that your actual position? This may just be a communication thing.

Edit: Pat your arguments may have been so terrible that you made me pro-copyright when I wasn't before.

Edit Edit: The premise around piracy being moral centers around that ideas cannot be property....But literally everything in human civilization is an idea or a concept. Unless the argument is that the only property your are allowed to have and protect is for the most basest of physical objects. And you MUST share everything else.

I don't even know how to answer that because I have no idea where you're getting any of that from.

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:28:11 PMI don't even know how to answer that because I have no idea where you're getting any of that from.

I assumed you didn't mean that. But thats what it sounds like:

QuoteYou are not getting what I said, the investment of resources does not grant you any rights other than ownership of any physical objects that were created.

This implies anything but a physical object cannot be owned. But 99% of the world in action are not physical objects.

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 08:34:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 08:09:52 PM
Still stuck on the idea that you have a right to other people's products for free? Because of the greater good?

How is it selling a product forcing anyone to give me money?

Or you mean that you can either buy it or not? Yes, so much forcing...

To you "forcing" people to give me money is the same as not being for theft.

Free exchange of goods/services for money = Forcing people to give me money says the socialist.

Back at you. That's exactly how I feel about your position. You're advocating theft. Real theft. And forcing people to work for you against their will.

And you don't get that.

I understand where you're coming from. You can tell, because I reacted to your arguments, discussed their origins and what they imply, and then went through and explained why I think you're wrong. I do think you're wrong, but I understand your position.

You clearly don't understand where any of the people who disagree with you are coming from, because you haven't addressed any of the points we've made. You've ignored what we said, and reverted back to the same rote talking points.

So there's really no point in talking to you. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Voluntary exchange of goods/services = theft according to you

It also equals me forcing ppl to work for me against their will, ergo slavery.

Yet, to you taking the stuff I made, spending my resources to make it and profiting from it without said exchange of money (giving me any money is slavery to you after all) is not theft.

You can always not buy my stuff, hence the voluntary part. You can always not use my stuff to make money from it, hence the voluntary part.

But to you and Estar this somehow violates your rights.

NOBODY has the right to profit from my investment without giving me money. They can choose not to profit from it and keep their money or they can risk a lawsuit. It's their choice.

I made it, I spent my resources making it, I own it, not you, not society, I; the individual who made it.

I'll ask again: How the flying fuck is me selling a good/service forcing anyone to give me money? I'm not building a damn to close the river so everybody HAS to give me money or die. I'm making a game, an RPG, it requires effort, time, money, creativity. But you "freemarkets capitalists" think you can take it away from me "for the greater good".

Just like in Cuba take away your cows, milk, etc. "for the greater good".

YOU are the one advocating for theft, slavery AND socialism, with all your talk about society "granting me a temporary monopoly" "for the greater good" and then taking my shit from me "for the greater good".

But you're an ideologue and can't see beyond your dogma.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 10:36:45 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:28:11 PMI don't even know how to answer that because I have no idea where you're getting any of that from.

I assumed you didn't mean that. But thats what it sounds like:

QuoteYou are not getting what I said, the investment of resources does not grant you any rights other than ownership of any physical objects that were created.

This implies anything but a physical object cannot be owned. But 99% of the world in action are not physical objects.

I didn't say that.

Are you confusing me with another poster?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 10:36:45 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:28:11 PMI don't even know how to answer that because I have no idea where you're getting any of that from.

I assumed you didn't mean that. But thats what it sounds like:

QuoteYou are not getting what I said, the investment of resources does not grant you any rights other than ownership of any physical objects that were created.

This implies anything but a physical object cannot be owned. But 99% of the world in action are not physical objects.

That's his exact position, you don't own the book you wrote. Because ideas, words, sentences and civilization and culture.

All 7 billion ppl in this world has access to the same culture, civilization, ideas, words and sentences... BUT only you wrote that book.

The idea was to write a book about X

The finished product is the book about X that YOU wrote, with words that you choose and sentences arranged in the way you choose, with the art YOU choose, etc.

BUT this dimwits think that doesn't matter, it's just an idea and you can't own ideas.

I was in the same boat, I was pro reforming IP to curtail Disney and the like from the shit they do and to protect authors.

This ideologues think SOCIETY owns what YOU write and are so magnanimous as ti give you exclusivity for a reduced period of time "for the greater good". And then take away any claim you have over what YOU wrote "for the greater good".

And somehow me being for the free exchasnge of goods/services for money makes me pro slavery AND theft. Because THEY think SOCIETY owns what I wrote.

Fuck that noise, I'm now for IP being forever.

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:41:43 PMI didn't say that.

Are you confusing me with another poster?

That qoute yes, but that is your general jist right? That a physical book is property, but its words (its ideas) are not? That property exists because of scarcity right?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 10:46:14 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:41:43 PMI didn't say that.

Are you confusing me with another poster?

That qoute yes, but that is your general jist right? That a physical book is property, but its words (its ideas) are not? That property exists because of scarcity right?

I stand by my words, not someone else's.

But how did you get any of the rest of that from the idea that property is based on scarcity?

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:41:43 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 10:36:45 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:28:11 PMI don't even know how to answer that because I have no idea where you're getting any of that from.

I assumed you didn't mean that. But thats what it sounds like:

QuoteYou are not getting what I said, the investment of resources does not grant you any rights other than ownership of any physical objects that were created.

This implies anything but a physical object cannot be owned. But 99% of the world in action are not physical objects.

I didn't say that.

Are you confusing me with another poster?

I write a novel, who owns it? Who owns the exclusive rights to print and sell it? Me? or SOCIETY? Who owns the exclusive rights to make it a movie?

That's your exact position, because to you a novel is just an idea and copying it doesn't make me poorer nor does Disney taking it and making a movie without giving me money violate MY rights.

BUT if I claim those rights then I'm for slavery and theft...

Oh and also being for private property makes me a socialist.

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:48:15 PMBut how did you get any of the rest of that from the idea that property is based on scarcity?

QuoteProperty exists because of scarcity. We only have limited resources in the world, and we have to figure out how to utilize them. The idea that we can all just share everything fails from a utilitarian perspective. Just think of public parks and roads, and how much garbage they tend to collect. An owner has a strong vested interest in caring for what they own, but when ownership if diffuse or unclear, people just don't bother as much to maintain it. This leads to what is known as the tragedy of the commons. The reason owners tend to care for what they own is because they directly benefit from its use, sale, or utilization. So ownership has a utilitarian basis. We want people to own things, and we want a free market where people can make exchanges of mutual benefit, because it's the best way to ensure the limited resources of the world are used in the most efficient way to meet human needs. This tends to benefits everyone, not just the owners.

But ideas, stories, songs, and so on aren't limited resources.

Is this you? I may have misqouted before, but im pretty sure this is you. From here I can understand that your view on ownership is based on the idea of scarcity - yes?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 10:52:25 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:48:15 PMBut how did you get any of the rest of that from the idea that property is based on scarcity?

QuoteProperty exists because of scarcity. We only have limited resources in the world, and we have to figure out how to utilize them. The idea that we can all just share everything fails from a utilitarian perspective. Just think of public parks and roads, and how much garbage they tend to collect. An owner has a strong vested interest in caring for what they own, but when ownership if diffuse or unclear, people just don't bother as much to maintain it. This leads to what is known as the tragedy of the commons. The reason owners tend to care for what they own is because they directly benefit from its use, sale, or utilization. So ownership has a utilitarian basis. We want people to own things, and we want a free market where people can make exchanges of mutual benefit, because it's the best way to ensure the limited resources of the world are used in the most efficient way to meet human needs. This tends to benefits everyone, not just the owners.

But ideas, stories, songs, and so on aren't limited resources.

Is this you? I may have misqouted before, but im pretty sure this is you. From here I can understand that your view on ownership is based on the idea of scarcity - yes?

It would help to link the post, but yes that looks like what I wrote. How did you get any of the rest of what you wrote from what I said?

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:54:47 PMIt would help to link the post, but yes that looks like what I wrote. How did you get any of the rest of what you wrote from what I said?

What rest? The one about corporate espionage and theft? Thats just a logical extrapolation of the logic. Its that in logically extrapolating your logic, it has now convinced me why you can in fact steal an idea.
Because so far all the arguments made against the idea of idea property, can be made as arguments against all property.

If land was infinite, if we just had a infinite amount of land, I assume that forcing somebody off of land they claim as their own (and in turn wasn't stolen or the like), would still be unethical right?